Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Ladyman (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).


Road Safety Bill [Lords]

I beg to move, That this House insists on Commons amendment No. 5, to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees to amendments Nos. 5A and 5B proposed by the Lords. Perhaps this debate will be a little less good-natured than the last one. Use of retro-reflective tape is already permitted, and many heavy-vehicle operators have already voluntarily opted to fit it. We in this country are committed to making it mandatory, and we believe that the best mechanism for achieving that is to amend both European Commission and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe legislation. This route has been agreed internationally, and proceedings are now under way that will mandate it in both European and international law. We do not believe that it would make good sense to try to introduce regulations covering only UK-registered vehicles in the run-up to the more universal requirement to fit the tape. In addition, the legal basis for making such UK-specific regulations before tape fitment is mandated by EC and UNECE law is, at best, uncertain. If we were to introduce regulations by the end of 2007, I cannot be sure we would not be open to challenge, and possibly to infraction proceedings. Unilateral Italian requirements on this subject have been mentioned in previous debates.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
451 c644 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Accidents Cameras EU law Fines Labelling Large goods vehicles Income International law Motor vehicles Roads Safety Safety measures Speed limits
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk